Retrieve the complete message history with a contact in chronological order. Specify a name or phone number and optional limit to review past conversations.
Get full conversation history with a specific contact. Shows messages in chronological order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum messages to return (default 50) | |
| contact | Yes | Contact name or phone number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses ordering ('chronological order') and completeness ('full'), which are real behavioral facts. However it omits pagination behavior, whether the limit truncates the 'full' history, permission/auth requirements, and what happens for an unknown contact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope (specific contact) leads and the ordering detail follows. Slightly generic but every sentence carries information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose but leaves the limit/truncation relationship and error behavior unaddressed, so an agent cannot fully predict the result set size.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both contact and limit, making 3 the baseline. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, and its claim of 'full conversation history' sits awkwardly against a default limit of 50 messages.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (full conversation history) scoped to a specific contact. It is clearly distinct from broadcast siblings like messages_recent or messages_search, but never names an alternative to route the agent explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'with a specific contact' implicitly signals this is the per-thread lookup versus a general search, but the description never states when to prefer it over messages_search or messages_recent, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.